Dark money has no role in Texas politics

Express-News Editorial Board

Updated 4:37 pm, Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Photo: Associated Press File Photo

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (right), has defended withholding the identity of contributors by so-called nonprofits that participate in political campaigns, but the public should know who is involved in electioneering in a democracy. less

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (right), has defended withholding the identity of contributors by so-called nonprofits that participate in political campaigns, but the public should know who is involved in ... more

Photo: Associated Press File Photo

Dark money has no role in Texas politics

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

SAN ANTONIO — Retaliation. Restricting free speech. These seem to be the arguments against requiring disclosure of so-called dark-money donors in Texas.

They are bogus, even if uttered by a U.S. senator.

Sen. Ted Cruz, on Facebook recently, was waving off the Texas Legislature from forcing disclosure of donors behind the 501(c)(4) nonprofits that the Supreme Court, in its Citizens United decision, said can spend vast amounts to influence elections. Presumably, this would be spending on a national level to support him if he ends up running for president in 2016.

No conflict of interest there, right?

Cruz said such a law would “chill free speech” and be “pernicious.”

But the Supreme Court, which did indeed say money is speech, didn't say these dark- money donors have to be anonymous. In fact, the high court has consistently upheld disclosure in campaign spending through the years.

The plain truth is that money in politics isn't speech. The high court is simply wrong, an error we hope is corrected soon.

In the election cycles since Citizens United, these alleged “social welfare” organizations backing or opposing candidates have revealed themselves as organizations whose sole purpose is to elect or defeat candidates. Their 501(c)(4) status is a dodge.

An Express-News article recently by David Saleh Rauf told of how much the role of dark money has increased in Texas politics. It was a point made often in a state House Committee hearing last week on the issue.

Gov. Rick Perry vetoed a bill that would have brought needed transparency. He, too, argued retaliation. But these kinds of secrets are simply incompatible with an open democracy.

If disclosure can be withheld in their case, why is it legal to compel disclosure from others involved in campaigns — political action committees and candidates?

By and large, their donors have not been subject to retaliation. And if their support for or against a candidate garners unwanted attention, this is the cost in a transparent democracy. People ought to have the strength of their convictions and be accountable for their electioneering activities.

These nonprofit groups are monitored by the Internal Revenue Service. And it is seeking rule changes that would require these groups to act like true social welfare organizations or lose their status. It's a worthy rule change.

Some have been citing a 1958 case in which Alabama sought the membership list of the NAACP in an attempt to shut down that organization's activities in the state.

The U.S. Supreme Court told Alabama it couldn't compel this.

But the issue in the 1958 case was freedom of association, not speech. These nonprofits are patently engaged in electioneering. There is no epic civil rights struggle here. There is simply a struggle to keep secrets from the public.

Texas House Speaker Joe Straus tasked the House committee with bringing more transparency to this process. And the Texas Ethics Commission has proposed rule changes to address this as well.

Now Playing:

This committee should reprise the law vetoed by Perry. The arguments have worn thin as the dark-money contributions have grown fatter.

And the answer isn't just transparency. Dark money aside, lawmakers should also include limits on what can be donated to candidates.